the notion of “nature” in the field of architecture. / 建築のフィールドにおける「自然」の概念

How does exploring the notion of “nature” based on comparing western philosophy and eastern philosophy could positively affect the architectural design?

西洋哲学と東洋哲学の比較をベースにしての「自然」という概念についての探求は、どのようにして建築デザインにポジティブな影響をあたえうるだろうか。

I have been thinking and exploring the answer of this question. The brief of my thought is....

この答えを求めて、考えこんだり、試したりと、試行錯誤を続けています。

簡単にまとめると…

There are two completly opposite architectual theories and examples; erosion of boundary between nature and architecture or creation of boundary. The concept of Nature- Culture dualism is western philosophy based on Plato’s body-soul dualism (Kito, 2009), on the other hand, the people-nature continuance is based on asian body mind oneness theory. 

ここに全く正反対の建築に関する理論とその例があります。建築と自然のあいだの境界線を消すか、それとも強く浮き上がらせるか。自然対文化の二項対立は、プラトンの心身二元論（霊肉二元論）に由来する西洋哲学に由来するものと考えられており、（だいぶ、ざっくりと説明していますが…）一方で、人間と自然を連続したものととらえる考え方は東洋の心身一如論が由来していると考えられるだろう。

2008 Biennale di Venezia, Japan pavilion. Jyunya Ishigami 

(image source : Ishigami, J 2008, small images)

Nature-architecture continuom. Seamless gradation. Ambiguous, indefinite spaces. In short, plants are not outside or “other” to his architecture. Ishigami’s Venice Biennale project sets forth a new relationship in with both elements embrace on equal project..... Ishigami’s aspirations might be to architecture in the image of natural phenomena. This time around, he addresses plants and buildings,inducing a radical shift in architectural thinking, shaking the very conceptual foundations so as to lead us into a world such as we’ve never experienced. (Igarashi, 2008)

石上純也さんの、2008年ヴェネツィアビエンナーレの日本パビリオン。

自然の要素と建築の要素の連続性。境界のみえないあいまいな空間。彼の建築において、自然は建築の外部あるいは「他者」ではない。自然、建築、どちらの要素もが対等に受け入れられている石上純也さんのヴェネツィアビエンナーレのプロジェクトは、自然と建築の新たな関係性を提示する。石上さんの願望は自然現象のように建築を構築することではないか、と五十嵐太郎さんは言う。五十嵐さんの「建築と植物」によれば、建築と植物への石上さんの挑戦は、建築的思考の根本的転換を誘発し、私たちが今まで経験したことのない世界へ、私たちを誘ってくれるのかもしれない。

Kandalama Hotel. Geoffrey Bawa

(image source : Owen, C 2008, ‘Architecture between the culture-nature dualism)

Kandalama Hotel seems create beautiful contrast between nature and architecture. Owen says, the architectural narrative should not entirely erase the underlying tensions between the culture/nature dualism. Boundaries may facilitate encounters with difference, permeability, and unpredictability. (Owen, 2008)

ジェフリーバワ設計のカンダラマホテル 

カンダラマホテルは建築と自然間のコントラストを美しく描き出す。建築は、文化ー自然二元論の間にある境界線を消してはならない、というのがオーウェンの意見だ。はっきりとした境界が、違い、透過性、および予測不可能性との出会いを促進するかもしれない。

Although, Taro Igarashi and Ceridwen Owen have opposing ideas, both of them suggest the poosibility to create new inspiring space from nature-architecture discussions. Therefore, I believe, further exploring philosophical green architecture is meaningful to my future project. 

五十嵐太郎さんとカリウェン・オーウェンさんはそれぞれ違う主張をしているものの、どちらも、自然−建築の議論をベースに、感動を呼び起こすような新しい空間の創造を提案している。したがって、自然−建築の概念をもとにグリーンアーキテクチャーの探求をしていくことに、意義があるように思う。

..... More than anything, it is so much fun to think about it!

なによりも、この話について考えるのってすっごい楽しい。

Salamanca court yard
I think I should re-considering about salamanca court yard in Hobart, Tasmania.
I was inspired from this Salamanca court yard a lot - please have alooo about my essay "story of the bluestone rock cliff and duck-rabbit."　http://mako-seekingthetruth.blogspot.com/2011/09/story-of-bluestone-rock-cliff-and-duck.html.
Rough rock cliffs in the city provide surprise and inspiration. The strong contrast between the man made walls of the buildings and the rock cliff is significant, although, this cliff is in fact not natural but manmade. How can I positioning this space in terms of nature-culture discussion?
サラマンカの中庭
タスマニアのホバートにあるサラマンカの中庭について再考しなければいけないなと思う。この場所がどれほど私に驚きと興奮を与えてくれたかは、私のほかの記事、「あひるうさぎと碧い石壁の話」を読んでもらいたい。http://mako-seekingthetruth.blogspot.com/2011/09/story-of-bluestone-rock-cliff-and-duck.html　人のつくった建築物の壁と、この荒々しい岩肌はの間には強いコントラストが存在する、だがしかし、実際はこの岩肌は野生の自然ではなく人工なのである。自然ー文化の議論において、このサラマンカ広場はどこに位置づけされるのだろうか？



Igarashi,T 2008, Plants vs architecture, INAX, Kyoto.
Ishigami, J 2008, small images, INAX, Tokyo.
Kito, S 2009, ‘Contemporary Environmental Ethics’, in Kito, S (ed.), Environmental Ethics, Tokyo University, Tokyo, pp1-22.
Owen, C 2008, ‘Architecture between the culture-nature dualism: a case study of Geoffrey Bawa’s kandalama hotel’, Archnet-IJAR, International Journal of Architectural Research, vol.2, Issue 1, pp.40-56.

story of the bluestone rock cliff and duck-rabbit. / あひるうさぎと碧い岩壁のはなし

Discovering the rock cliff at salamanca courtyard
It was a dramatic and romantic meeting. I will always remember the moment the rough surface of the bluestone cliff suddenly appeared in front of me at the end of the dark and narrow corridor. The primitive rock surface covered with weeds and flowers absolutely fascinated me. The important point was that I was not walking through a wilderness forest, but lively Salamanca where small shops overcrowd each other. I was between heritage buildings, so it was not expected that I feel the sense of wilderness. In addition, the tiny courtyard was full of people and vibrant with life. The rock wall acted as the perfect backdrop for the band, and people were enjoying the music under the plants living within the cracks of the rock. I was overwhelmed with the beauty and liveliness of the space. This was one of the most impressive experiences of my first week of staying in Hobart, Tasmania.

Hobart and me
Hobart is a new city to me, as I have been living in Launceston since I came from Japan two and a half years ago. When I decided to come and stay in Hobart to partake in the research project during the summer break, I only knew that Hobart was the biggest city in Tasmania, that the popular Salamanca Market was held every Saturday and that the waterfront is a beautiful place to walk. My research partner, Raja, comes from Malaysia, so is also an out-of- towner. Neither of us knew anything about Hobart, and we often got lost in the Hobart CBD. Our Hobart urban life was full of surprise, wonder and excitement.

Hidden Rivulet forming the urban landscape
The first day of the research project at the OSA -Office of the State Architect -was unforgettable. Alysia who works at the oOSA took Raja and I for a walk around the Hobart CBD. Her walking path was very dynamic, free from the tidy city grid, unlike our own. The organic shapes of arcades and laneways from Centrepoint to the Cat and Fiddle Arcade to Wellington Walk promote different walking paths from the edge of the city block in the tidy city grid. It seemed like great architectural planning – however, it was actually formed by the path of the Hobart Rivulet.

It is the Quarry – but not wild nature
One day, when I was talking about the rock cliff face with excitement, Peter, the state architect told me that the rock cliff was actually not natural, but was man made. He said that it was in fact a Quarry. At first I couldn’t believe nor did I understand that the rock was man made because it felt wild and natural – I was shocked.

Duck-rabbit illusion
After Peter told me that the rock cliff at Salamanca was the Quarry, not only did my understanding and image of Hobart city change, but also the concept of the city and landscape became something new. It is similar feeling to Kuhn’s duck-rabbit opitical illusion. He uses it to demonstrate the way in which a paradigm shift could cause one to see the same information in an entirely different way. Such a paradigm shift occurred within my mind.

Man dominates nature or nature dominates city?
This is the moment something in my mind started to change. I questioned my- self: Why I was so impressed by the rock cliff? Why did I feel as if the rivulet was romantic? I started to wonder about the concept of wild nature and man made environment. I was not sure who actually dominated the form of the city and landscape - man or nature? I feel that Hobart city has the potential to have strong characteristics of connections with nature, but what does “nature” mean?

This essay is the introduction of "SPECULATE"

which is corroborative ADR(Advanced Design Research) report 

with OSA;Office of State Architect. 

岩壁との出会い。サラマンカの中庭で。

ロマンチックでドラマチック、そう、衝撃的な出会いだった。狭く暗い道をとおりぬけたあと、荒々しい青い岩肌が突然目の前に現れたあの瞬間を私は忘れることができないでいる。なんとも原始的な力強いその岩肌は、そのところどころを草花に覆われ、そして私を魅了した。だいじなポイントは、私はけっして森の中を歩いていたわけではなく、小さなお店が肩をならべひしめきあっている賑やかなサラマンカ（タスマニア、ホバートにある地区）を歩いていたということだ。古い石造りの歴史的建造物の建ちならぶなか、原生的な自然を感じることになるなんて、どうして予想できようか。その小さな中庭は多くの人と活気に満ちていた。切り立った岩壁は最高のバックステージとしてバンドの演奏に華を添え、そして人々は岩の小さな亀裂に生える植物の下で音楽を楽しんでいた。その空間の圧倒的な美しさと熱気といったら！タスマニアの州都ホバート滞在一週目の、最も忘れがたく印象的なできごとだった。

ホバートと私

二年半前に日本からタスマニアに移ってきて以来ずっとわたしはロンセストンという町に住んでいる。そのため、私にとってのホバートはまったく新しい町だった。夏休みの間の研究プロジェクトに加わるためホバート滞在が決まったとき、私がホバートについて知っていることと言えば、タスマニアのなかで一番大きな町であること、毎週土曜日にひらかれるサラマンカマーケットはすごく人気であること、それから、水辺の景色が綺麗でお散歩するのにもってこいであるということ。それだけだ。私の研究パートナーであるラジャはマレーシア出身。したがって彼女も私と同じく「よそもの」である。二人ともホバート地理にあかるくなく、おかげでよく迷子になった。私の夏休みのホバート生活は、驚きと、不思議、興奮でいっぱいのものとなった。

都市を形づくる隠された小川の存在

タスマニア州立建築家（公務員建築家）のオフィス（OSAと呼ぶ）での研究プロジェクトの初日も忘れがたいものがある。OSAで働くアリシアはラジャと私を町歩きに連れ出してくれた。アリシアの選ぶ道、歩いた道は、きちきちとした都市のグリッドから解き放たれ、自由でダイナミックだ。街区にそって、つまりしかくいブロックのふちを歩いていた私とは大違い。アリシアとの散歩は、センターポイントからキャットアンドフィドルアーケードを抜けウェリントンウォークまで、商店街や小さな抜け道、ビルの隙間をくぐっていくようにして、オーガニックな軌跡をえがく。歩くことが楽しくなるような道。もしかしてこの道は、素晴らしい都市計画、都市デザインのひとつなのではと感嘆のため息を漏らしていると、アリシアは衝撃の事実を私に伝えた。この都市景観はホバートにながれる小さな川によって形成されたというのだ。ホバートの秘密を知り、私の心臓がとくとくと早く脈をうちはじめた。

石切り場。原生自然ではなく。

ある日、OSAで、私は大興奮しながら件の青い岩壁の話をしていた。すると、それを聞いていた州立建築家のピーターは「ほんとうのところ、あれは自然じゃないんだよね。人工なんだよ。」と私に言うではないか。私が原生自然の香りを感じたあの岩肌は、自然の景色ではなく、石切り場だというのだ。サラマンカにたちならぶ石造りの建築群のその資材としての石を切り出したあとできた崖なのだ。そう耳にしたとき、にわかには信じられなかった、いや、理解できなかったという方が正しい。あの岩が人工？野性的な自然だって感じたあの岩が？ショックだった。

アヒル - ウサギの錯覚

ピーターが、あのサラマンカの青い岩壁は自然の景色なのではなく実際は石切り場なのだと言ったあと、私のホバートについてのイメージが変わっただけでなく、都市や風景の概念までなにか新しく見えだした。それは、まるでトーマス・クーンのアヒル - ウサギをみたときのような感覚。クーンは一つの同じ情報をみていてもまったく違う見方をすることができるということをアヒル - ウサギをつかってしめし、パラダイムシフトについて説明をした。パラダイムシフトとは、当然のことと考えられていた認識や思想、見方、常識、価値観などが革命的に劇的に変化することを言う。そう、そのパラダイムシフトが私の中でおこりはじめていたのだ。

人間が自然を支配しているのか？自然が都市を支配しているのか？

私の考えが変わり始めた瞬間だった。私は自分自身に問いかけて見た。どうして私はあの岩壁にあんなにも感動したのだろう。小川が都市を形成する話にうっとりとし、ロマンチックだわと感じたのはどうしてだろう。原生自然と、人工環境という概念そのものに疑問を持ちはじめた。そして、いったい何がこの都市の風景をかたちづくっているのか、人間なのか、それとも自然か。わたしにはよく分からなくなっていた。ホバート、この町は自然とのつながり方という面で強い個性をもつ可能性を秘めているんじゃないか、と思い初めていたのだが、しかし、いったい「自然」とはどういう意味なのだろう？なにをもって「自然」と呼べばいいのか？

このエッセイは

OSAタスマニア州立建築家（公務員建築家）のオフィスと共同の

アドバンスドデザイン研究の報告書である

"SPECULATE（思索）"という小冊子の

イントロダクション（前書き）として書いたものです。

GREEN ARCHITECTURE? / The installation as a research in architectural design.

Theoretical framework

The aim of the design is to urge users to perceive dynamic relations in the world. 

    This is based on the concept of nature as a continuance of people, not as an opposition. There is a close correlation between ourselves and the world inclusive of nature. Ourselves and nature can not be divorced from each other.

These ideas that thinks about nature in the world of relationship is expected to advance the improvement of environmental problems in the field of environmental ethics (Kitoh 2010). Morikawa also discussed the importance of understanding nature as a continuance of people (2010). However, environmental ethics are blind to the city or of people’s living environment and this is a crucial mistake for ecological reasons (Andrew Light 2001). In the investigation of the interconnection of meanings in life-world, philosophers, humanists, and social scientists tend to forget that the problems of body and spaces are related to these considerations (Yuasa 1987). Therefore, I think it is meaningful to translate the idea of world in the field of environmental ethics into the architecture. I believe it would help architecture to contribute to the improvement of environmental problems. 

    To materialize the dynamic relation of the world, I would like to assimilate Japanese classic theories into the installation. The reason is that Kitoh’s idea and Japanese classical theories may have similarity. In the design process, I explored the essential ideas lay down in Japanese classical philosophy generated by Dogen, Yuasa’s body-mind theory, Japanese classical architecture and garden to engage with environmental issues existing the world. 

    The installation is designed as a research in architectural design that engages with environmental problems (that would be my future project). It is an experiment in the possibility of architecture, whether architecture can inspire users to consider environmental problems.  

The goal of exploring the material and structure of installation is perception that everything has dynamic correlation with each other; Nature and people, self and other.

The process and relation to theory

Original plan of the installation is the space filled by strings curtain(fig.1). The space is expected to change its shape by wind and body movement. People in the installation may feel the dynamic space through the strings touching their body. MDF board would be structure that support strings. 

   Firstly I choose the site carefully because the connection of outside world is highly important in this installation. I chose the site where direct sunlight and blowing wind can be obtained. The installation is located in front of architecture building, next to the castle (other students’ work). This is because to make contrast between static space of the buildings and dynamic space of installation (fig.2). I chose the tree standing against the background of the text “ARCHITECTURE + DESIGN” (fig3). It suggest the installation is for architecture + design. After the experiment in the installation, some of the user may find the text behind tree and may compare the dynamic space of installation and the buildings. These idea is based on “Shakkei” one of Japanese garden’s technique.Japanese gardens are not complete in themselves. They tell us that all of the mountains, sky, and the universe as a whole are an extension of a garden (Kuma, 2010). The essential idea of Japanese garden is similar to Dogen’s philosophy. Dogen’s understanding of the world is an extension of ourselves (Yorizumi 2005).

Second stage is placing MDF board under the tree. As wind is too strong to keep MDF board parallel with ground, MDF is fixed on branches (fig.4). Thirdly, the end of strings is fixed on MDF board. The strings do not work as intended in my aims. The wind move strings too much, therefore people cannot feel our body moving the strings. People may not be able to perceive strings movement caused by both of wind and body. Moreover, many strings became one bunch, looking like a thick rope (fig5). This original plan appears to have failed.

   After a failure of first plan, the material is reconsidered. Translucent paper is tested instead of strings because it might be heavier than strings, but does not work too (fig.6). Wind move the paper too much for people to be able to feel the movement by their body. 

  Because of second failure, the 

structure may need to be reconsidered. When the other end of paper is fixed, it could save too much movement from the wind (fig.7). When the direction is changed from vertical to horizontal, the material could move softer, enough to create interaction between body and materials (fig 8). Changing direction to horizontal may have significant effect on looks. However, the form is not so important but to create interaction between body and materials is more important for my installation, based of the core theory. In the ‘Rediscovery of Japanese beauty’ written by Taut, he says that European architects remain in a world of forms, on the other hand Japanese architects have lived in a world of relationships. (Kuma, 2010)

Furthermore, material is also reconsidered. The strings may suit because it stronger than paper. There are many different types of strings at shops, for example plastic strings and cotton strings (fig.9). I chose cotton strings as it feels as if it is something comfortable to the body because I want people to enjoy their perception through their body long enough to notice the theory behind the installation. The physical sense of moving awakens the mind to shift in mental attitude (Kuma 2010). In the active status of body-mind identity, the ambiguous dichotomy of the body disappears (Zeami 1363-1443). If the installation works well, people may not feel body and mind are separated. If the space works successfully, people feel self and others are connecting. 

The cotton strings and horizontal direction works better than any other test before, so I decide to use it. The strings are coiled between two trees (fig.10). Then the density of the strings is increased. I used 2 and half ball of the strings. 1 ball is approximately 530m, therefore, total length of strings is around 1800m. The strings are placed from the top of the trees to nearly ground. To enter the space, people need to bend their body, bow their head and lift some strings up. “The gentle motions of inclining the head or blushing aside the cloth is surprisingly amplified and makes us aware that we are passing into a space of a different quality (Kuma, 2010).”  

The next stage is inviting people 

and seeing their reaction (fig.12)

This artifact is not complete in itself. This installation works when people are inside to have interaction.

   Caption next to the installation may need to avoid explaining the concept too much. The reason being that the aim of the installation is to perceive through the body without prior knowing from story telling. The perception through body is highly important in Dogen’s theory (Yuasa). I would like to let people feel something free. In the tea-room it is left for each guests’ imagination to complete the total effect in relation to themselves (Okakura, 1906). To make this design outcome as a research, I want to know what people feel without knowing it as a research project. Therefore, I put the installation but not explanation of the installation (fig.13).

   To collect feedbacks, I prepared question and answer sheets. However, I could not get answer sheets as same number as people who tried the installation. Some people said to me the question is too difficult to answer. This question sheet may need to be improved. Finally I decide to be near the installation and talk with people to get feedback.

During the open day of the installation, I remove unnecessary structure, MDF board (fig.15). The reason is that the boards are not necessary to support the structure of installation, but might disturb people’s attention and their body. Around 8 people asked me about the MDF board on the branches. My final outcome ended up with using only strings (fig.16). 

Accident happens. On thursday morning, I found that some of the strings are cut and some of strings have lost their tension. As a result, there is a less interaction between body and strings. On the other hand the movement of strings became dynamic and complicated. It may work differently compared to the day before. One more ball of strings (530m) is added. The density of strings become higher and the movement of strings become complex. I invited people again and looked carefully at the difference. This time, it looks like it gave people more surprise and is more entertaining.

Response to artifact / self reflection

From the question sheets and some interviews, most people have a strong impression of the strings. Some of the people mentioned wind and other people’s movement. However, nobody talk about the connection with the outside world. The installation may fail to evoke the infinite dynamic relations of the world outside. This installation does not work as an architecture engaged with environmental problems. However, based on these findings, it would allow me to explore other ways in the future.

   People’s strong impression of the direct interaction between body and strings is more than I had expected. On the other hand, wind, other people or outside world did not give a strong impression, it may be because these elements do not touch the body directly. Perception through body might really be stronger than I expected, and perhaps this is something that I can use to explore to make a more material connection to outside world.

   As a research, my project may need improvements to collect more feedbacks from various people. This will provide for more valuable data. Most of the guests are architecture students. One of the reasons may be because is a weekday. I think open days are too short to collect feedbacks. The question sheets should be easier to answer.

In conclusion, this whole project is a success because I learn a lot by reading and considering the theories to drive me to create the installation, which I have never done before. I find the possibility of exploring eastern body-mind theory in architecture valid, as most of people told me their special feeling of strings from this project. I also find that it may find a way to engage with environmental ethics if explored further. Through this project, my interest became clear too and I think this project is helpful for my further design work. 

Thank you for everyone who came and had experience with my installation.

Thanks a  lot.

Mako






http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=30393&id=150972124948218&saved

Groat, Linda and Wang, david. Architectural Research Methods (John Wiley & Sons, INC, 2002):PP21-43.

Kito, Shuichi. “Contemporary Environmental Ethics”, Environmental Ethics (Tokyo : Tokyo University Publication, 2009):PP1-22

Kuma, Kengo. Kyokai : A Japanese Technique for Articulating Space, Kyoto: Tankosya, 2010 

McLeod, Mary. “”Other” Spaces and “Others””.  The sex of the architecture. ed.Agrest, Diana and Conway, Patricia and Weisman, Leslie. K. New York: Harry N. Adrams, Inc., Publishers,1996: PP15-28.

Morioka, Masahiro. “People/Nature”, Environmental Ethics (Tokyo : Tokyo University Publication, 2009).

Okakura, Tensin. The book of tea (New York, 1906).

Staszak,Jean-Francois. “Other/otherness”.  International Encyclopedia of Human Geography. (2008).

Robinson, Julia W. “Architectural research : Incorporating Myth and Science”, Journal of Architectural Education, 44no.1(1990):PP20-32.

Yuasa, Yosho. The Body : Toward an Eastern Mind- Body Theory, ed by Kasulis, Thomas P., translated by Nagamoto, Sgigenori and Kasulis, Thomas P. (New Yourk: State University of New York Press, 1987) . 

Yorizumi, Mitsuko. Dougen- Self, time and world, (Tokyo:NHK Publication, 2005).

Zeami. Fuushikaden, transrated by Mizuno, Satoshi. (Tokyo: PHP Editers group, 2005)

The installation.

Please go under the strings and stand between strings.

There is a tiny space like a corridor.

Close your eyes and take a deep breath.

When you open your eyes,

you may regard only tree and strings.

If the sunlight is a strong, you might be able to see the white strings clearly.

Then, please walk from towards one of the trees.

Your body may feel the strings touching you.

You may notice the dynamics of the space.

It is changing its shapes all the time, by wind and body.

You might invite your friend inside.

The tiny corridor space may be able to become a tiny room.

What you need is only push the strings a little with your body to make the space wider.

When your friend pushes the strings, your body may feel the push, because your body is touching the strings.

If you hold some of the strings above your head and pull it,

you may see the twigs are bowed.

Also when the twigs are bowed, you may feel the movement of strings and changing the space.

There is a correlation between tree and you through the strings.

This space is variable and dynamic.

Its perspective is changing all the time by your body movement, your friend’s action, or a spring breeze.

Please try.

I now have a few questions for you.

Could you tell me what you find?


http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=30393&id=150972124948218&saved

Environmental ethics in the field of the architecture／建築分野における環境倫理学

Environmental ethics in the field of the architecture

I would like to challenge and critic to “green architecture” as a latest fashions of architecture. In my opinion, current green architecture might be blind to environmental ethics. Although the studies or testing of new technologies to saving energy use or material use have been developed, there are lack of ethical studies. As the research methods may have significant effect on the research (Linda Groat and David Wang 2002) research of green architecture need to consider methodology too. Architectural research of environmental problems may needs ethical point of view as well as scientific one.

Environmental ethics are also blind of city or people’s living environment and this is a crucial mistakes for ecological reasons (Andrew Light 2001). I think that ignoring urban environmental issues in the field of environmental ethics and ignoring ethical issues in the field of architecture indicative environmental ethics of green architecture is totally emptiness.

　　 Andrew asks us that whether living lightly on the earth means really environmental responsibility. If so encouraging urban dwelling does more good for the environment, when we based on the one of the scientific research data explain that more urbanaised cities tend to use less energy than country side (Andrew 2001). However, Rolston criticized big-city life which is foreign to our native, earth element (1998). The deep ecology of Arne Naess discuses the importance of experiencing wildness as the sores is human attitude change (Andrew 2001).

I now want to go back to the topic of the green architecture. Saving energy use is concerned as a one of the goals of green architecture and is contained in environmental rating systems. I think the field of architecture need to exam whether saving energy use means really environmental responsible architecture. I asked to myself and answer is... may be yes, but not enough.

Is Nature “other ” of architecture?

In my opinion, green architecture may need to be not as a others of nature. The reason is that nature may have been treated as others by architecture and this could be problematic.

According to Igarashi, architecture’s primal vision is of conquering nature and architecture haven’t get out of this primary vision (2008). He says gardens are also artificial nature contoroled by people (2008). “Le Corbusier’s Ville radieuse and New York Central park are both natute abduced into the ueban core, even tree houses merges nature. (Igarashi 2008)

　　　　From the environmental ethics point of view, the environmental problems are often argued as a conflict between people and nature or diveloping and protecting (Kitoh 2010). Kitoh points out that the main environmental discussion in 19th century is conservation, in other words, protecting nature for people’s profit (2010). On the other hand, 20th century’s mainstreams is environmentalism which against the concept of human centric (Kitouh 2010). In my opinion, although the ideas are different, both of them seems based on dualism; people and nature, self and otherness. From the reading of “the sex of the architecture(1996)” I learned that diversity of groups has risks to create problems like unfairness, especially the categorizing into two groups; self and other. Therefore, I would like explore the way to produce architecture not as other of Nature. 

昨今の最新の建築ブームとも言える「グリーンアーキテクチャー」について考えてみたい。グリーンアーキテクチャー（環境にやさしい建築）には環境倫理学という視点がかけているように思う。エネルギー使用を押さえるためのテクノロジーや、新素材が研究され、テストされてきている一方で、倫理面からの研究は進んでいない。研究方法は結果に大きな影響を与えるものである（リンダ・グロート、ディビッド・ワン 2002）から、グリーンアーキテクチャーの研究・開発においても方法論を熟慮する必要があるのではないか。環境問題に対する建築的な研究は、科学的な視点と同時に倫理的な視点も必要であると思う。

環境倫理学の分野でも、都市、あるいは人間の住環境についての視点が欠けており、これはエコロジカルな面で非常に重大な失敗である、とアンドリューは指摘している(2001)。都市環境問題について、環境倫理学の分野の取り組みが遅れており、同時に建築分野での環境倫理への考慮もなされていないとしたら、「建築分野における環境倫理学」は今、まったくのブラインドスポットといえるかもしれない。

アンドリューはわたしたちにこう問いかける。地球に負担をかけずぎすライトに暮らすことが本当に環境に対して責任をとっているということになるのか？もしそうなら、人々に大都会に住むよう進めることが環境に良い、ということになる。都市生活の方が郊外の田舎暮らしよりエネルギー使用量が少ないという科学的なリサーチデータが発表されている(2001)。しかし、ロールストンは巨大な都市での生活は、私たちの本性、地球的な要素とはかけはなれていると批判する(1998)。ネスのディープエコロジーは人間の行動を見直し変えるきっかけ作りとして、原生自然との経験の重要性を訴えている (アンドリュー　2001)。

グリーンアーキテクチャーに話しをもどそう。エネルギー消費量を抑えることは、グリーンアーキテクチャーのひとつのゴールとして位置づけられている。建築がグリーンかどうかを数字で表す評価システムの項目に含まれている。果たして、エネルギーの消費を抑えることが本当に環境に対しての責任をうけおっていることになるのか、建築のフィールドはきちんと吟味しなくてはいけない。私は自分自身に問いかけてみる。答えは、たぶんイエスだ、でもそれだけでは十分じゃない。

自然は建築の他者なのだろうか？

グリーンアーキテクチャーを自然に敵対する他者として考えるのをやめてみたらどうか。建築は自然を他者として扱いつづけてきたが、それが昨今の問題につながっているように思われるからだ。

五十嵐によれば、建築の原始的な目的は自然を制圧、支配することであり、建築はいまだこの原始の視点から脱しきれていないという(2008)。彼によれば、庭ですら人間にコントロールされた人工の自然であり、ル・コルヴィジュエのVille radieuseもNew York Central parkも都心に拉致された自然であり、ツリーハウスでさえ自然を制圧するものだという(2008)。

環境倫理学の視点からみると、環境問題というのはよく、人間と自然、開発と保護の二項対立として議論されつづけている（鬼頭 2002)。19世紀における議論の主流は保全、つまり人間に有益であるよう自然を守るというものであった（鬼頭 2002)。一方で20世紀では人間中心主義に反対しての環境中心主義、保存という考え方だ（鬼頭 2002)。意見は違っているとはいえ、どちらも人間対自然、自己と他者という、二元論に基づいているようだ。ところで、1996年に出版されたセックスアンドアーキテクチャーを読後、私が強く感じたことは、ものごとをグループわけするときには、そこに不公平や不平等が生まれる危険性がある、ということだ。自己と他者の二つのグループにわけられるときはとくに。だから私は、自然の他者ではない建築をうみだす方法を模索したいと思う。

Link together. Living together./ Kampung improvement and development, Yogyakarta, Indonesia.

Kampung (urban poor) improvement and development.

Design proposal from urban planning to renovation of mental hospital.

This design encourages living together.

Living with water

Living with green

Living with "other" people

Living with community

Living with neighbors

Living with family

The architecture that I propose is a part of the project, but not sculpture.
The project that I suggest could be a pert of people's life.
The design is based on the idea that everything is a part of something.

Development and Environmental protection
Tradition and New Technology
Respect local custom and show other sense of value
Bottom up strategy and Top down strategy
Communism and Capitalism

Do we have to choose one from two? Why?
Do you think one is more excellent than others?
Are that two really opposition?
Are you sure?

This proposal would improve both of public hygiene and quality of river water.
This building respects the local people's traditional life style ; living with community.
This building also privide the private spaces have different characteristics.

Respect each other.

Link together.

Living together.



http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=30390&id=150972124948218